I've been getting friendly with Windows Live lately, and after getting terribly tired of having to switch to HTML view in Windows Live Writer in order to insert a note (could be a footnote or endnote depending on how you look at it), I decided to see if I could write a plug-in to make my life easier.

So was born the Blog Notes plug-in. Unfortunately, there is no extensibility for just marking up existing text (e.g., adding a superscript button to the markup toolbar), so I had to go with the option to insert some HTML using the interface. I really was trying to keep it simple and lightweight (for my own sanity), so it is pretty basic.

The functionality is pretty straightforward. Thanks to Mark James for the free icons. Once the plug-in is installed, you should see an "Insert Blog Notes..." option in the Insert pane on the right side as shown below.

Clicking on it brings up the Blog Notes dialog:

Clicking "New Note" will insert a new superscript number (the next one in the sequence).

Clicking "Reference Note" will insert the selected number as superscript. You can also just double-click the number to do that.

As you can see, it's pretty basic, but it saves a few seconds for each note (assuming you bother to switch to HTML view, find the number, and put <sup></sup> tags around it like I do [did]). You can also tweak one option/setting. Go to Tools -> Options, and select the Plug-ins tab:

Clicking Options... on the Blog Notes plug-in brings up a tres simple dialog:

This one option will toggle whether or not the plug-in uses in-page anchor links for the notes so that the superscript numbers would link down to the corresponding note in the Notes section. I originally added this feature without realizing the implications. Because blog posts are often aggregated and otherwise viewed in unexpected places, using in-page anchors is iffy at best. Community Server seems to strip them out, and dasBlog keeps them, but since it emits a <base /> tag to the site root, all of the anchor links are relative to the site homepage instead of the current post, which effectively renders them useless. I looked at the dasBlog code where this happens, and it's in the core assembly. I was concerned what side effects changing it to use the current URL would have, so I didn't do that. But if you have blog software that will let you use this feature, by all means, enjoy!

Caveats

Because of the way the plug-in framework works, I use a static/shared collection to keep track of the notes. This means it acts a tad goofy if you close out of Live Writer or write multiple posts while it is open. If you close and come back to a post, the notes count is reset. To "fix" this, just re-add however many notes you had (if you want to bother). If you write multiple posts, you just have to deal with it. I don't know if there is post-local storage for plug-ins, but I didn't have time to dig into it.

Your mileage may vary. I wrote this mainly to save myself time and get familiar with the Live Writer extensibility model, so it ain't a finished product to be sure.

Get It! Since there are numerous tutorials on the Web (that I learned from) to write Live Writer plug-ins, I won't go into those details here, but you're welcome to download my code and learn from it directly if you want. I think I have comments and such in there.

Download the Plug-in Only - If you just want to use this plug-in, this is what you want. Drop the DLL into your plug-ins directory and go (typically C:\Program Files\Windows Live\Writer\Plugins).

Download the Source Code - This is a VS 2008 solution for those who want to learn, enhance, extend, whatever. The license is more or less the MIT license. You'll need Live Writer installed to reference its API.

Notes1. This is the "Notes Section." The button adds the "Notes" header and writes out any existing note numbers.

Today marks the 791st anniversary of the official establishment of the Dominican Order. It's so cool to be a part of this ancient order, being fraternally connected to the many Dominican saints, blesseds, and regular folk like me.

Happy Birthday, Order of Preachers! May you have thousands more!

Of course, just being a member of the Catholic Church, the "one continuous intelligent institution that has been thinking about thinking for two thousand years,"1 is pretty dang cool, too. :)

Far be it from me to put words in Phil's mouth, but I hope that folks recognize that his post about favoring composition over inheritance is not specifically about that one best practice (the comments seem to indicate this is being missed). It's pretty clear to me that the thrust of that post is around a philosophical approach that he thinks the ALT.NET community should make.

Two things stand out from Phil's post in this respect: 1) don't appeal to authority, and 2) don't organize yourself around a set of technical principles (best practices), but rather organize yourself around the non-technical values of independent thinking and desire to improve. I hope that everyone can agree that these latter two values are good ones that should indeed be encouraged.

That said, should a community like ALT.NET eschew forming a more formal consensus on technical best practices? I tend to think not. While independent, critical thinking is valuable, it is not the summit of perfection. The summit of perfection, in the realm of ideas at least, is conformance with truth (what actually is versus what I think is), and independent thinking at odds with what is true is not only not valuable in itself, it can be downright detrimental.

For instance, what if you independently and critically think that security and privacy are not important aspects of the online banking application you are tasked with building? Is that kind of independent, critical thinking valuable in itself? Or will it potentially lead to great harm? Independent, critical thinking is valuable only in as much as it deepens one's understanding of and conformance to truth.

So I think that there is value in a community such as ALT.NET expending the effort to define principles through critical thinking and argumentation that it will hold up as ideals, i.e., things that seemed to be most in accord with the truth as we know it. This is where things like patterns and best practices come into play; it is the shared, accumulated wisdom of the technical community.

Now what about the broader idea of eschewing appealing to authority? Far be it from me to claim to be an authority in logic, but it seems to me that all appeals to authority are not invalid (the wikipedia article Phil links to discusses this to some degree but does not go far enough, in my estimation). The valid reasons for appealing to authority are discussed at the bottom of that article: 1) not enough time and 2) concern at one's ability to make the other understand the reasoning underlying the truth being expressed.

In terms of logic, it is not a fallacy to appeal to an authority on a topic that is accepted by all those involved in an argument. We're talking about presuppositions here, and without them, we'd never get anywhere in our search for truth. If you always have to argue from first principles (if you even acknowledge those), you simply get stuck in a quagmire. In terms of the topic at hand, if folks accept (as they generally do) that the GoF et al are authorities on the subject of OOD, then it is valid, logically speaking, to appeal to their authority to establish the principle that you should favor composition over inheritance.

The thing to watch out for in appeals to authority is 1) thinking that the authority is incapable of being wrong and 2) ensuring that the parties involved accept the authority. With the latter, you simply cannot argue (or at least the argument won't carry weight) from authority if the authority is not accepted. With the former, unless it is a presupposition shared by those involved that the authority is indeed infallible, you should keep in mind that even if you buy into the authority's credentials, it is still possible that the authority can be wrong.

So I would nuance what Phil says and say that if the ALT.NET community agrees that GoF is an authority, it is valid to appeal to them, while remaining open to criticism of the concepts involved (even those backed by an authority). The authority adds logical weight; it does not impose absolute authority.

We just don't have time to argue everything from first principles. Others who are generally acknowledged to be qualified have already taken the time to research, think about, and propose some good patterns and practices, and unless there is good reason to object, there is no need to rehash those. Instead, I'd suggest that the community focus on spreading knowledge of these patterns and practices all the while refining them, functioning essentially as a group in the way that Phil recommends individuals function--thinking critically and always working to improve. Doing this will help ensure that the community does not fall into a quagmire of unnecessary argumentation, and it will ensure that the patterns and practices that they agree upon can be continuously refined and enhanced as new technologies emerge and greater wisdom is gained over time.

Further, it gives the group a purpose that has meaning. After all, if the group's message is only "think for yourself and be all that you can be," there isn't much of substance to say after that. On the other hand, because it is a technical community that espouses that philosophy, it should take that philosophy on itself (as a group, not just the individuals in it). I would suggest this includes establishing greater consensus on best practices and patterns and then spreading the word about them to others. Be better together. :)

You see, it is not about setting down an infallible manifesto and excluding those who disagree, which is I think more than anything what Phil is concerned about. However, it also isn't about best practices just being true for you but not for me (best practices relativism?). Put another way, I suggest ALT.NET should favor thoughtful adherence to best patterns and practices, not blind adherence.

As I read1 the works of Christopher Alexander, I grew increasingly concerned that the software industry may be missing the point of patterns. Well, maybe that's not the right way to put it. I think we may be missing the real value that patterns bring to the table.

For whatever reason, it seems we approach them (broadly speaking) almost as loose algorithms to be applied here and there as it seems fit. Or maybe we just see them as convenient ways to talk about things we already know, or maybe we even use them to learn particular solutions to particular problems. And then maybe we just use them because it is en vogue.

It seems to me that the real value to derive from patterns (as an idea, not necessarily as they are often proposed in the software world) is in learning to see and think about creating software in the best way. What Alexander proposes at the end of The Timeless Way is that it isn't using patterns or pattern languages, per se, that give our creations the quality without a name. No, he proposes that the value lies in helping us to recognize the quality and teaching us to build in the timeless way.

The timeless way is more than patterns. The thing is, patterns help us to get there. I think in some ways, we do get it. Those who are really into patterns do seem to recognize that patterns are not the solution to everything. The problem is, I think, in that we are not using patterns in the most profitable way.

I think part of the problem is in not using patterns as a language. We have numerous catalogues of patterns. To be sure, we do not lack for patterns, and sure, there is obviously value just in having these catalogues and in using the patterns here and there. But I think that as long as we see patterns as individual things in a pattern catalogue, we won't use them to their full effectiveness.

Perhaps what we need to do is to figure out how to use them as a language. Perhaps we need to weave them into our thoughts so that when we approach the problem of building software, patterns are there, guiding our thinking, helping us to best arrange a solution to fit the problem. When we use our natural language, it does the same thing. Our thoughts are constrained by our languages, but at the same time, our thoughts are guided by our languages. The ideas form in our heads and rapidly coalesce into some structure that is based upon our language, and the structure works because of the language--it tells us what works and what doesn't work to articulate our ideas.

I think that a pattern language would have the same power. If we get the patterns into our heads, then when we're faced with articulating a solution to a problem, we will think in terms of the patterns. The patterns will give form to our solution, and because they are patterns, the solution will work. The pattern language will both guide and shape our thinking towards things solutions that have the quality without a name.

But then, as Alexander says of "the kernel," once we master the language, we move beyond it, so to speak. The language is not an end in itself but a means to an end, a means to learn the timeless way. It shapes our thinking to the extent that we are able to perceive the way even without a pattern. And this is the superlative value in patterns that I think we're missing.

Patterns, in themselves, have value, but as many have noted, they can be abused and misapplied. The reason for this is not that a pattern (or patterns in general) are bad but that we're using them as an end in themselves. If we simply let patterns shape the way we think about designing software, if we let them become a language, then we will learn to use them in ways that make sense and ultimately go beyond them and build great software even where a pattern doesn't exist.

So how do we do this? Well, I think to some extent, we already do it. I think there are people who use the language, who know the way, without necessarily being conscious of it. And I think that there is a lot of great guidance out there that in a roundabout way does lead to building great software, even though it may not be conscious it is using patterns as a language. But I do tend to think that there is far more bad or failed software out there that has come about because the language is not known, it is not explicit.

I think that what we need to do is to continue identifying patterns as best we can, but we need to start thinking about how to more firmly incorporate them into how we create software. In fact, I think doing this, attempting to incorporate patterns more into development, will drive the further identification of patterns, to fill out patterns where we are lacking. I also think it will help us to realize how patterns relate to each other, which is a big part of using them as a language and not just a bunch of monads floating about in the ether. As we see them relating, see how they work together to form complete solutions, we'll better understand the language as well as the value of the language, and ultimately, we'll be able to impart that language to enable more of us to speak it.

This calls for those who build great software, who theoretically already know the way, to be introspective and retrospective. It's not just a matter of looking about in the software world for repeated, similar solutions. It's about identifying good solutions, solutions that bring software to life, not just addressing functional requirements, and forming from those solutions a language of patterns for building such software. What do you think?

In my last post, a co-worker of mine commented on my saying "they may as well be Protestants." It didn't occur to me at the time how this might be interpreted by, of course, Protestants. The point, in that context, was directed at those who think themselves to be "true Catholics" (those traditionalists who, above all, would not want to be identified as Protestants) but who end up being, by their protestations of the last ecumenical council, the Second Vatican Council, end up becoming Protestants themselves.

You see (I've thought about this a fair bit, being a convert from Protestantism), I think the thing that truly separates a Protestant from a Catholic is a basic mindset, the mindset that sets itself up as the final arbiter and authority on truth. In other words, it is a manifestation of the original sin of pride based on the original temptation for us to "be like God who knows what is good and what is bad," (Gen 3:5) that is, what is true and false. Such a mindset, even if well-intentioned, is at the heart of all Protestation of God's authority, from Lucifer to Eve to Adam to us. Of course, it is for God alone to judge our hearts, to impute, and to forgive our guilt, and he is a just and merciful judge.1

This post is a kind of expansion on how this mindset relates to being a part of the Church. I have no delusions that these musings will "convert" anyone. Just take them as my own personal reflections for what they're worth. They revolve around my meditations on one of the mysteries of the rosary. It's written to Christians, so I am writing from those presuppositions.

Introit

Weaving a crown out of thorns, they placed it on his head, and a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' -- Matthew 27:29

The third sorrowful mystery is the crowning with thorns. Lately while meditating on this mystery, I keep having the idea of the Church (the invisible, spiritual body of all Christians) in my mind. The Church is a wonderful thing; it is sometimes called the body, sometimes the bride, of Christ. It is a thing that honors and proclaims the majesty and dominion of Christ, the King of the universe. In that way, it is a crown, which is a symbol, a proclamation of regal authority and power.

But I think it is a fractured crown, broken into many pieces, divided asunder by the arrogance and pride of many. There is the Great Schism that has divided the eastern church from the west, and of course there is Protestantism and its many divisions. But even before that, since the beginning (as attested to by the letters of St. Paul), there have been those who sow discord and cause division--even those who think they are doing the right thing and truly think they are following God's will.

So I see this fractured crown that we call the Church, a thing that despite itself is indeed a herald of Jesus' Kingship. I see Jesus the King, bloodied, beaten, and scourged, being crowned, but instead of the crown being the thing of beauty and awe that it should be, it is this broken thing, disjointed, full of jagged edges and being driven down onto the head of the King of the universe, the splinters biting deep into His skin, tearing it, and scratching against His skull.

Rather than being an occasion for joy, the crowning is an occasion for sorrow because what should be whole, smooth, unified, and undivided, is instead shattered, jagged, split, and divided. This is the image of the Church today--the crown of thorns. It is still a messenger of Jesus' kingship, but it is not the thing of beauty and awe it should be.

Jesus prayed four times to the Father (in St. John's Gospel, chapter 17) that we (the Church, Christians) would be one. But through our arrogance and pride, we have utterly failed in this, from the earliest of times. It seems clear, based on just this prayer alone, that unity in the Church is of supreme importance to God, and it is a perfect unity--the same unity that exists between the Father and the Son--that God desires for us.

Jesus said "that they may be one as we are one" and prayed that we "may be brought to perfection as one," so we see that it is not a superficial unity or a unity only in "essentials" (a common term by ecumenists who try to glaze over real and important differences). There is NO division in God, and this is what God wants for the Church.

Similarly, when Jesus founded the Church upon St. Peter, he promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Here, a few interesting things stick out to me. First, Jesus specifically grounds the Church he is founding as something on earth. He gives the keys of heaven to Peter, saying that what he binds and looses on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. It seems to me this is a foundation of a visible (earthly) Church that Peter would lead with real binding power both here on earth and in heaven.

The Church is indeed the mystical body of Christ, but it is also an earthly body. Like us, you could say, it has a body and a soul, but the two are fundamentally one thing. When Jesus founded the Church, he established an earthly (bodily) existence with Peter at its governor, giving him the power to bind and loose, as well as a heavenly (spiritual) existence, also governed by Peter.

Jesus, at this institution of our mutually earthy and heavenly Church, promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. In other words, the powers of hell, the domain of Satan and the fallen angels, are going to try to prevail, but they won't. The Church will be under assault, but it will remain forever, and being a unity of body and soul (earthly and heavenly, visible and invisible), this means that the Church will stand firm on both earth and heaven under the delegated governance of Peter and that the visible Church (as well as the invisible) is inextricably and directly linked with the headship of Peter.

Since St. Peter was not to live here on earth for eternity, yet we see from the Word of God that the Church remains forever on earth and in heaven under Peter, it follows that God intended for this headship, on earth, to pass to St. Peter's successors, whom we know as bishops of Rome, popes. Thus the visible, earthly body of the Church is that Church which is under the headship of Peter and his successors, what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church.

Now we return to the prayer of Jesus. If it is God's will (as it is clearly revealed in St. John's Gospel) that we believers be perfectly unified (absolutely no division in body or soul), and it is God's will (as seen in St. Matthew's Gospel) that there be a perpetual Church under Peter on both heaven and earth, it follows that this perfect unity is to come about in that Church and no other. It follows that we are to place ourselves under that headship, subordinating our personal druthers, opinions, and reasoning to the leadership that Christ established and endeavor to eliminate anything in us that damages that perfect unity that Christ so strongly desires.

Doing this is not only an act of obedience to the King of the universe, it is an act of love. Seeing how strongly Jesus desires that we be truly one, we should desire, if we truly love God, to fulfill his desire. Just as a lover infatuated with his love has no other desire but to please his beloved, so we should desire to please God. We should be that perfect, shining, unified crown upon the head of Christ the King.

We should also, therefore, be ashamed, truly sorry, and saddened, however, that we are instead a crown of thorns. As long as we selfishly and proudly put our own opinions, desires, and reasonings ahead of our love for Christ, our fulfillment of his desire that we be one, we will remain this crown of thorns. It is for this reason, in part, that I have joined myself to the Church of Christ under Peter's headship. It is not blind faith; it is wide-eyed, ferocious love for Christ that compels me to do so. Protesting against this Church, creating division upon division against it, is not only injurious to those souls who are driven from Christ by our divisions, it is an injury to God himself. How long will we remain this crown of thorns?

-- Given on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in the Year of Our Lord 2007

Notes1. Update: In other words, I'm sure there are plenty, probably most, who do not even recognize or intend this, but it seems to me that it is at the heart of the protestant approach to the faith, even if wholly unconscious. I tend to think that God will have mercy on those who are not aware of it (inculpably ignorant), and in any case, I don't make such judgments on individuals myself! (cf. St. Matthew's Gospel 7:1ff.)

This is an open appeal to anyone interested in having the traditional Latin mass in the Princeton, NJ area. The traditional Latin mass (TLM) is also known as the mass of Blessed John XXIII, the (now) extraordinary form of the Latin Rite, the Missale Romanum of 1962, Tridentine mass, and more. With the publication of Summorum Pontificum(I know; I'm a bit late), I'd like to get in touch with anyone in the area who feels attached or maybe just is interested, priest, lay, religious, old, young, student, professional, whatever. My hope is that there will be enough interest in the area to organize time at least once a week where the extraordinary form could be celebrated.

When I was living in Tulsa, OK, I had the blessing of an FSSP parish. In fact, the pastor was Fr. George Gabet, who went on to become the North American District Superior of the FSSP. Although my family decided to return to Holy Family Cathedral while we were still in Tulsa, I've never lost my appreciation for the TLM. It can have a certain beauty and mystery that seems to not be as common in the ordinary form in the vernacular. Especially the high mass with the chant, the asperges, the incense, the vestments, the silence, the celebration ad orientem, and (to a small degree) the Latin itself have a quality that is transcendent and mysterious that you just don't get normally.

Now, unfortunately, there are those who use the extraordinary form as an opportunity to promote dissension and disunity, some to the point that they may as well be Protestants (in the plain sense). Despite my appreciation for the older form of the mass, I am not one of those nor do I wish to encourage that by petitioning for the Latin mass in my area. I am one of those "young persons too [who] have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist particularly suited to them." I, with the Holy Father Benedict, hope that "the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching."1

If you're interested or know of one in the area, please drop me a line; you can use the contact feature on the right or comment on this entry. Pax vobiscum!

I'm so pumped! I just got my SQL Toolbelt mug from Red Gate. I proudly display it on my desk (below) and in meetings. :)

The mug reads (this is awesome): "You may look at my Red Gate mug. You may not borrow it." Like the mug, Red Gate's software is awesome, too. I've used SQL Compare and SQL Data Compare for a long time, and I love the (relatively new) SQL Prompt. They have a ton of other tools in their toolbelt targeted more at DBA types than devs/architects like me. I highly recommend them if you do much SQL development or administration!

The weekend of 3 November was an important weekend for me. Apart from getting some great, seasonal family (pictured below) photos with Hussey Photography, on Saturday, the feast of St. Martin de Porres (a Dominican brother), I was received into the Dominican Order as a lay Dominican.

[This is what we normally look like. :)]

Believe it or not, I've been trying to write this post for over a week now, agonizing over the right way to write or even if I should write it at all. I want to avoid repeating what is written elsewhere1 about Dominicans, and particularly lay Dominicans, even though I feel like explaining just about every other term I use because it's pretty unfamiliar to us everyday folk (and because I just like explaining things).

You see, I want to explain (told ya!) why I joined the Dominican Order, but it's kind of hard to do without using religious or Catholic jargon, but then when I start explaining the jargon, I find myself reiterating what one can find by looking into these other online resources. When it comes down to it, I did it because I think it is what I am supposed to do; I believe it is what God wants me to do. We call it a vocation (a calling). It's not a club or cult or simple study group. It is a way to a more perfect life, the life of perfection and holiness to which we are all called and for which we have all been created. It's a peculiar way of living towards that end.

It's peculiar in the Dominican love of truth and the expression of that through study, contemplation, and sharing that with others (preaching), and that's why the Dominican Order is actually called the Ordo Praedicatorum (Order of Preachers). "Preaching" is meant in the broader sense of proclaiming, not just from a pulpit. Perhaps what Dominicans do was best put by St. Thomas Aquinas, an early Dominican: contemplare et contemplata aliis tradere, which means to contemplate and to pass on to others what is contemplated.

I don't know why; it's certainly no doing of my own, but I have a love of truth. I think it's been with me my whole life, but it became more pronounced in college, and it is what led me to become Catholic. I have an inkling that its something God instilled in me, and that's partly why I feel called to the Order of Preachers, even if only as a layman (since my first vocation is to marriage and fatherhood).

For some time now, I've considered becoming Dominican. I first thought about it back when I lived in Tulsa, OK, not long after I became Catholic. But at the time, it took a long time to find a local chapter (community), and when I found one, it was about hours away. So not only would it have been troublesome, but it just didn't seem like the thing to do at the time, so I let it go.

[Four Brothers Making Final/Solemn Profession on 10 Nov. 20072]

I didn't really think much about it for a long while after that, until Mrs. dotNetTemplar got me a small book last Christmas called How to Be a Monastic and Not Leave Your Day Job. That book, though intended to invite folks toward becoming Benedictine Oblates, renewed my latent interest in the Dominican Order, so I went online, found 3op.org, read up on it again, and it just seemed like it was the right time to pursue it further, so I got in touch and started attending the St. Catherine of Siena (a 14th century lay Dominican--yeah, the Dominican Order was established 800 years ago!) chapter in Philly, which meets once a month for prayer, mass, study, and sometimes, apostolate (thus bringing together the four pillars of Dominican life).

That made me what they call an "aspirant," which is basically someone who's checking it out, and it's a time for the Dominicans to get to know you, too. At some point along the line, I became a postulant, which basically means you're intending to join but you are still in the getting-to-know-you phase. At the end of the postulancy, if everything checks out on both sides, you can be received, and that's what happened to me on the 3rd. I got the habit (which, for us lay folk, is the Dominican scapular), received the Rule, and professed my intention to live like a lay Dominican.3

Now I'm a novice, a n00b. :) I'm officially Dominican, even if only a novice, but apart from not being able to vote or hold office, I'm fully a lay Dominican. After a year, I make temporary profession, which is a three-year promise to live as a lay Dominican, and after that, I make a perpetual profession, which is a lifelong promise to do the same. Of course, the point of the graduated promises is to make sure that it's the right thing for me (we call it discernment), so at any point up to the perpetual profession, there's still an easy exit route. It is a real commitment, not as binding as marriage or religious vows, but a serious commitment, so that's why there's the period of discernment.

Anyhoo, I'm pretty pumped. Being received actually had more of an effect on me than I anticipated; I expected to feel pretty much the same as before, but I don't. I really feel a part of the Order, and I feel a renewed interest and strength to pursue the vocation. It's just the beginning, but I feel really good about it. I'm looking forward to continuing and doing more praying, studying, and sharing the fruits of all that.

Pax vobiscum! [Peace be with you all!]

Notes1. For instance, the official site of the Dominican Order, the vocations Web site here in my province, and that of the lay Dominicans in the eastern US, which I think is one of the best resources for learning about lay Dominicans. Oh, by "lay" we just mean not ordained or consecrated, which basically means not a deacon, priest, bishop, or what most of us think of as monks and nuns (it's a bit more involved than that, though). 2. It should be noted that the brothers here and above are consecrated, not lay, brothers. 3. This basically means according to rules #8-10 of our Rule.

Previously, I mentioned I was working on an example of using Visual Studio to create a concrete domain model using object thinking, and here it is. The domain I ended up modeling was that of a shared event calendar, including event registration and agenda planning. This is something that's been kind of rolling in and out of my mind for quite a while now because it seems that we need a good system for this for all the code camps and like events that occur. Of course, lately I've come across a few solutions that are already built1, but it seemed like a domain I knew enough about that I could take a whack at modeling it on my own. I also figured it was small enough in scope for a sample.

So without further ado, I present you with the domain model:

I put this together in about an hour, maybe an hour and a half, on the train up to SD Best Practices. When I started out modeling it, I was actually thinking more generally in the context of a calendar (like in Outlook), but I transformed the idea more towards the event planning calendar domain. So you see some blending of an attendee being invited to a meeting with the event planning objects & behaviors (agenda, speaker, etc.). Interestingly, they seem to meld okay, though it probably needs a bit of refactoring to, e.g., have an Attendee Register(Person) method on the Event object.

So the interesting thing to see here, contrasting it to the typical model you see in the .NET world (if you're lucky enough to see one at all!), is that there is pretty much no data, no simple properties or attributes, in the model. The model is entirely objects and their behaviors and relationships to other objects. You can look at this model and get a pretty darn good feel for the domain and also how the system functions as a whole to serve this domain. I was able to identify and model the objects without once thinking about (and getting distracted with) particular data attributes.2

In the story of our Tangerine project, I describe in some depth the compromise I had to make with the .NET framework when it comes to data properties. I think if I were to continue with this event calendar project, after I had nailed down the objects based on their behaviors (as begun in this example) and felt pretty good that it was spot on, at that point, I'd think about the data and do something like I did on Tangerine, having the open-ended property bag but also adding strongly-typed properties as needed to support framework tooling.3

I hope you can imagine how you could sit with your clients or whoever your domain experts are and quickly map out a lightweight model of the domain using the VS Class Designer DSL. I'll wager that if we took this diagram and showed it to a non-technical person, with a little help (maybe adding a key/legend), they'd quickly understand what's going on with the system. And if you're building it with the domain expert, you'll have that dialog done already so that everyone will be on the same page.

Sure, there will be further refinement of both the domain model and the code; the nice thing about using the class designer DSL is that tweaking the model tweaks the code, so the two stay in sync. We already mentioned the need to focus on the data at some point, and depending on your situation, you can do this with the domain experts or maybe you'll have an existing data model to work with. As the developer, you're going to want to get in there and tweak the classes and methods to use best coding and framework practices, things that aren't best expressed in such a model. You will have other concerns in the system to think about like security, performance, logging, user interface, etc., but that's all stuff you need to do regardless of how you approach analyzing and modeling your domain.

In the end, you will have a fairly refined model of the domain (or part of the domain) that is using a language that everyone gets and agrees on (Eric Evan's "ubiquitous language"); you'll have identified the objects in the domain accurately based on their behaviors and relationships, and you'll even have a starting point in code for the implementation. You also have objects that are responsible and that collaborate to get the job done, so in that way you avoid code complexity by reducing imperative control constructs. All in all, it seems like a great foundation upon which to build the software.

Notes1. Such as Microsoft Group Events, Community Megaphone, and Eventbrite.2. Okay, so maybe I was tempted once or twice, but I fought the urge. :) 3. I suppose another option would be to create LINQ-based DTOs; I have to think more about how best to meld this kind of domain modeling with LINQ.